For AMA, Partial Support Doesn’t Mean a Whole Endorsement

There’s a difference between liking aspects of something and endorsing its entirety.  Consider a restaurant with a convenient location and ample parking that serves crummy food, or a conservative who had to force herself to vote for John McCain, and you get the drift.  That sums up the American Medical Association’s relationship with H.R. 3962, better known as the nearly 2,000-page behemoth Nancy Pelosi shoved through the House of Representatives Saturday evening.

The group might collectively favor some of its contents, but that’s different than backing every one of the document’s seemingly countless words.  They themselves are emphasizing the distinction.  A Smart Girl Nation source who attended a recent AMA meeting on the subject claims, “President Dr. (James) Rohack repeatedly told the AMA House of Delegates that AMA DID NOT endorse H.R. 3962 but only supported elements of it and AMA is working to improve it.”  It’s not a matter of parsing words: there’s a chasm that separates where they stand versus where 220 members of the House currently reside.

Instead, the Association is keen on advocating the same long-term goals it’s traditionally favored, some of which center around concepts alien to the current bill’s parameters.  For example, one resolution at the meeting stated “That our AMA actively and publicly support the inclusion in health system reform legislation the right of patients and physicians to privately contract, without penalty to patient or physician” (emphasis added by our source).

That doesn’t sound like the stance of an organization devoted to wholehearted support of Obamacare, Pelosicare, or any other form of Democraticare.  It’s one of their specific tenets sympathetic to free market reform found within a recent press release from the group on the subject.

The language is key.  While some media outlets have gotten the precise language right, it’s crucial to not only be aware of the AMA’s position but also how it’s reported by the media or elected officials.  Anyone concerned about health care’s future should be on the lookout for claims that the Association is fully sanctioning legislation that it merely likes in pieces.

Whether they’re made due to sloppiness or cunning distortion, such classifications are incorrect.  It might seem like a small deal, but it’s equivalent to the difference between dating and being engaged.  In the end, maybe the AMA just wants to be friends.

Popularity: 1% [?]